Obama's tax plan makes great sense. - Page 3

Likewise... It can never be assumed that all of the poor are poor because they are stupid, irresponsible or lazy. Some people are actually poor because of circumstances beyond their control. Even if they are stupid, that can be something genetic that is beyond their control. So I guess what you're suggesting is to just let the stupid ones suffer, and maybe they will die, and through Social Darwinism we'll progress as a species...

Likewise... It can never be assumed that all of the poor are poor because they are stupid, irresponsible or lazy.

I don't know of anyone claiming this. Smells like a straw man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Some people are actually poor because of circumstances beyond their control.

Sometimes, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

Even if they are stupid, that can be something genetic that is beyond their control. So I guess what you're suggesting is to just let the stupid ones suffer, and maybe they will die, and through Social Darwinism we'll progress as a species...

Well, I'm not suggesting any such thing. I also don't know of anyone else that's suggesting this. But, whatever... Smells like another straw man.

Yikes! That was a major logical leap. You might be eligible for a refund on that logic class you allegedly got good grades in.

On the contrary. You're missing my point again. If you cannot differentiate which of the poor needs help, and you're not extending help to all of the poor, then what on Earth do you expect to do? Give out assistance by lottery? Help based on degree of poverty (never mind that the 'poorest' might be the poorest because they're the laziest)? Anyway, wouldn't that just be redefining the poverty level?

So how will you determine exactly whom to help? Or are you saying you wouldn't help all, nor some (through your secret worthiness determination system, I guess), but NONE of the poor directly?

On the contrary. You're missing my point again. If you cannot differentiate which of the poor needs help, and you're not extending help to all of the poor

First, I do see the point that you're trying to make, but I'm not biting until you make your case.

Second, there is a logical leap here. It's in the notion that because someone is "stupid" (as you have suggested) they need the help you're suggesting. This is a non sequitur.

Third, there's the assumption that government-provided welfare actually helps more than it hurts.

Finally, there's the assumption that help cannot be extended to people on a localized, individualized, case-by-case basis rather than through an all-encompassing "Let's just make this for anyone and everyone" approach.

On the contrary. You're missing my point again. If you cannot differentiate which of the poor needs help, and you're not extending help to all of the poor, then what on Earth do you expect to do? Give out assistance by lottery? Help based on degree of poverty (never mind that the 'poorest' might be the poorest because they're the laziest)? Anyway, wouldn't that just be redefining the poverty level?

So how will you determine exactly whom to help? Or are you saying you wouldn't help all, nor some (through your secret worthiness determination system, I guess), but NONE of the poor directly?

No, you're missing the point. The point is that we should not be helping people simply BECAUSE they are poor. If someone does not have the mental and/or physical ability to work/support himself, he should be assisted in whatever way possible. In other words, we should not help people based on financial need. We should help them based on ability (note: I am not arguing against short-term assistance like unemployment or homeless shelters, etc.)

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Finally, there's the assumption that help cannot be extended to people on a localized, individualized, case-by-case basis rather than through an all-encompassing "Let's just make this for anyone and everyone" approach.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

No, you're missing the point. The point is that we should not be helping people simply BECAUSE they are poor. If someone does not have the mental and/or physical ability to work/support himself, he should be assisted in whatever way possible. In other words, we should not help people based on financial need. We should help them based on ability (note: I am not arguing against short-term assistance like unemployment or homeless shelters, etc.)

Back to my initial question, and the point...

So... What company is going to start administrating the I.Q. Tests to determine which of the poor are genetically stupid and which of the poor are just lazy?

If Prop 8 failed you would be lauding it as an example of "true democracy at work".

I've made my position on the subject quite clear.

If prop 8 had failed, I'd have said, "Great! A majority of Californians aren't ignorant assholes."

You sure have made your position quite clear. You are a giant flaming hypocrite. You want more rights for everyone (except those nasty homos). You support an organization that explicitly tries to make decisions about other people's lives.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

If prop 8 had failed, I'd have said, "Great! A majority of Californians aren't ignorant assholes."

You sure have made your position quite clear. You are a giant flaming hypocrite. You want more rights for everyone (except those nasty homos). You support an organization that explicitly tries to make decisions about other people's lives.

Just think of all the gay dads and lesbian moms that could get married and procreate! He's being compassionate for the sake of all those unborn babies!

I think the government should be out of marriage altogether. But the reality is it's quite involved.

I'm not just going to sit on the sidelines.

So you don't like that government is involved in marriage so it's important to make sure to vote to deny rights to a specific group that if you had your way would actually be able to do as they please.

Since the government is involved, might as well toss out all your libertarian ideals and marginalize a group of people your religion hates! Makes perfect sense.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

So you don't like that government is involved in marriage so it's important to make sure to vote to deny rights to a specific group that if you had your way would actually be able to do as they please.

Since the government is involved, might as well toss out all your libertarian ideals and marginalize a group of people your religion hates! Makes perfect sense.

You also belong to an organization that supported a proposition to tell other people what they can do. You even admit to supporting said proposition.

Reconcile the two statements. You do not get to dodge the cognitive dissonance here. Face it. Deal with it. Explain how you reconcile those two mutually exclusive positions. Or are you too much of a coward to go through that type of introspection? Or are you just too dishonest? I'd rather not believe the third option, which would be that you are too dimwitted to realize they do conflict.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

You also belong to an organization that supported a proposition to tell other people what they can do. You even admit to supporting said proposition.

Reconcile the two statements. You do not get to dodge the cognitive dissonance here. Face it. Deal with it. Explain how you reconcile those two mutually exclusive positions. Or are you too much of a coward to go through that type of introspection? Or are you just too dishonest? I'd rather not believe the third option, which would be that you are too dimwitted to realize they do conflict.

Your "gotcha" games are boring me, BR. You really need to come up with some new material.

Do you even know how I voted on Prop 8?

Not that it matters to you. Regardless of how I voted - or even if I didn't vote at all - you would be playing these same games.